The reason they play those games is because, shock horror, they win votes.

Well that's fine with me as long his fans do not take the high ground. And I have no doubt in my mind that Ron Paul with his PoV will never be taken seriously by the majority of Americans to elect him the President.

Ron Paul: Codger, crank or more? - CNN.com
A fellow libertarian offers more detail on Paul's racism-as-strategy. Paul and his circle aspired "to create a libertarian-conservative fusion ... [by] appealing to the worst instincts of working/middle class conservative whites by creating the only anti-left fusion possible with the demise of socialism: one built on cultural issues. ... [The strategy] apparently made some folks (such as Rockwell and Paul) pretty rich selling newsletters predicting the collapse of Western civilization at the hands of the blacks, gays, and multiculturalists. The explicit strategy was abandoned by around the turn of the century, but not after a lot of bad stuff had been written in all kinds of places."

This article confirms my worst fears about what Ron Paul and his ideas stand for.

Ron Paul is a big proponent of Home Schooling yet when he himself had the opportunity he sent all his children to public schools. So he benefited from the system and took free education offered to him and his children, now he wants to abolish the department of Education.

Once again, I think Ron Paul is consistent with racist, white supremacist agenda of running America like the 19th Century America. Home Schooling in America is considered by the high income white Americans who do not want their children to follow the secular curriculum and also uncomfortable with the mixed racial population of students.

Not saying that All home schoolers fall into that category, not at all, infact many do it out of necessity but Ron Paul is once again pandering to the base that has been loyal to him. The more I read the about this guy, the scarier it gets.

Ikki - here's further proof that if Paul is the nominee, there will certainly be an enthusiasm gap for Republican voters: Gingrich wouldn't vote for Paul. This is a major Republican candidate proclaiming he won't support his own party's nominee. I hear this from Republican voters all the time on talk radio and websites. Trust me, he would be crushed against Obama in a general election.

Yeah, I don't for a moment expect that any republican will vote for Obama in the 2012 election, Anti-Obama feeling among the Republicans is so bad that they will vote for any Buffoon over him.

Thankfully It is looking more and more like Obama Vs. Romney, My preference would still be Obama but I will not mind Romney as a President, I know he will do his usual flip-flop once the elections are over and go back to being pro-choice, pro-universal healthcare moderate Massachusettsian.

So your statement "He has not changed at all" does not hold true. He did change his stance on Capital Punishment.

What is your point? That he never changed his mind? I didn't claim that really and I didn't mean it literally. I do remember this Vote site which tracked how people voted and since the 1930s there has not been a more consistent voter. Look, Paul being the most consistent person in American politics is not really a debate. He is. Is he perfect? No, but no one else holds a candle to him.

Originally Posted by Sanz

He is someone who doesn't offer any solutions the problems modern day America is facing. When he is faced with a tough question, he either panders to the Republican base (e.g. his stance on Evolution, Guns, Civil rights,taxes, immigration) or refers to the state (Gay Rights, Abortion, Healthcare,education, etc.).

Government is bad is all he preaches yet has spent a good portion of his life in government. We should elect him if we want America to go back to the days when people have right to reject you a service or job because they do not like your race and color. That alone is a reason to not like him and he offers plenty.

For all the fault and problems America has, It is still the best to be and by quite a distance.

Please, stop generalising a candidate's positions when you've repeatedly shown you do not understand what they are actually about. Paul is a Libertarian, not an anarchist. He sees government as useful but in a far smaller capacity than most of the left - whom love their socialism - would agree with. I find it ironic how they have double-standards. They love individual liberty, yet cannot comprehend how that extends to economic freedoms as well.

Originally Posted by Fusion

Ikki - here's further proof that if Paul is the nominee, there will certainly be an enthusiasm gap for Republican voters: Gingrich wouldn't vote for Paul. This is a major Republican candidate proclaiming he won't support his own party's nominee. I hear this from Republican voters all the time on talk radio and websites. Trust me, he would be crushed against Obama in a general election.

That's not proof of anything and you missed my point. I said Paul fans will simply not vote for other candidates. All it takes is some searching around boards online or meeting Paul fans face to face to see how dead serious that claim is.

Gringrich has no loyal fan-base and it is dwindling. He got a gust of wind underneath his sails for a while but he is a joke. If the above is proof for you, then what about this? Romney would vote for Paul over Obama. Gingrich himself, in the R debates, said that everyone on the stage (meaning all the candidates) were superior to Obama. Right now he is just butthurt because Paul has smashed him in his ads and Gringrich's base is sinking like the Titanic.

Moreover it has been repeatedly shown recently in many news reports that Dems, Inds, and people of other political background make up almost half Paul's base. They are only voting for Paul because of Paul.

Originally Posted by Sanz

This article confirms my worst fears about what Ron Paul and his ideas stand for.

No it doesn't, all it does is provide hollow shells for you to shoot at Paul for. Instead of going through every topic you can manufacture a disagreement with/misrepresent Paul for, I'll simply give you this word document some individual online wrote for Paul which clears up a lot of issues the MSM are desperately trying to smear him for.

Thankfully It is looking more and more like Obama Vs. Romney, My preference would still be Obama but I will not mind Romney as a President, I know he will do his usual flip-flop once the elections are over and go back to being pro-choice, pro-universal healthcare moderate Massachusettsian.

Whether Romney ends up the nomination I do not know but recent polls show Paul is still surging and is now outright 2nd in NH while leading in IA. How he does will determine, tremendously, how popular he will be. If he wins them, he'll only grow. His base hardly ever shrinks.

Also the fact that you wouldn't mind Romney says it all about how deeply you look at candidates.

Please, stop generalising a candidate's positions when you've repeatedly shown you do not understand what they are actually about. Paul is a Libertarian, not an anarchist. He sees government as useful but in a far smaller capacity than most of the left - whom love their socialism - would agree with. I find it ironic how they have double-standards. They love individual liberty, yet cannot comprehend how that extends to economic freedoms as well..

I am sure Paul understands Governments are useful, as long as they protect him, build roads for him. Paul does not practice the things he preaches.

And Government is socialism in some form, If you are using public money to build dams, protect borders etc, it is socialism. Paul has his own double standards, I know it, the world knows it.

some of the excerpts brought up in this article just confirms what a big piece of turd pile the guy really is...suggesting that the harassee has some responsibility in job-related sexual harrassment suits and should just quit the job...and what are these "downtrodden white caucuses" the guy is referring to? kkk? aryan nation? i just hope the mother****er doesn't get anywhere near a presidency...